Gurdial Singh vs Director General of Prisons

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Gurdial Singh petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 29.3.1982 after his conviction in a case under Sections 302/34, 307 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code. At present he is confined in Central Jail, Gurgaon. He has filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for his release on parole for four weeks under Section 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.

The petitioner alleged that he owned residential house bearing No. V177 178, Gandhi Colony, N.T.T. Faridabad which was being occupied by his mother who was of the age of 80 years. The house was in a deplorable condition and was unsafe for residence. It could collapse at any time. His mother being an old woman was unable to undertake the repairs. There was no other member in the family who could get the house repaired. In support of his allegations he filed one certificate issued by President, Gandhi Nagar Sudhar Samiti, Faridabad and an affidavit sworn by Satya Rani, his mother.

In the return filed by the respondent it was alleged that the petitioner did not own any house and the house was owned by his mother. The parole case of the petitioner was rejected by Additional Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide order dated 5.2.1993 on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner did not own any house of which the repair was to be conducted and there was danger of breach of peace in case he was released on parole. It was further alleged that the averments in the petition that there was no body in the family to conduct the repair of the house was false and contrary to the facts. The petitioner had two brothers Kuldeep Singh and Harvinder Singh who often came to meet the petitioner in jail and they were in a position to effect repair of the house. The brothers of the petitioner lived in the same house.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

As per the averments made in the petition the petitioner alleged himself to be the owner of house No. V177178, Gandhi Nagar, Faridabad and according to him only his old mother lived in the house and there was no other male member in the family who could effect repairs. This averment of the petitioner stands belied by the affidavit of Satya Devi who claimed herself to be the owner of the house. The certificate issued by president, Gandhi Nagar Sudhar Samiti, Faridabad shows that mother of the petitioner worked in various houses and cleaned utensils, so she is not such an infirm old lady as is asserted in the petition. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the fact that he had two brothers Harvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh who lived in the same house. When two of the brothers of the petitioner are living in the same house with his mother and the house is owned by the mother, then there is no justifiable cause to release the petitioner on parole for carrying on the necessary repairs of the house. He has filed this petition by stating wrong facts and the petition deserves to be dismissed on that score alone.

As a result I find no merit in the petition and dismissed the same.